10ish years after overlay GPS approaches were introduced in the US, we in
the UK still have no GPS approaches. There must be a considerable body of
evidence collected on accidents, incidents and anomalies over the period
that GPS approaches have been in use. In particular, there may be evidence
that GPS approaches have improved overall safety in non-precision
approaches.

Any pointers please?

Thanks

Julian Scarfe

Julian Scarfe wrote:

> 10ish years after overlay GPS approaches were introduced in the US, we in
> the UK still have no GPS approaches. There must be a considerable body of
> evidence collected on accidents, incidents and anomalies over the period
> that GPS approaches have been in use. In particular, there may be evidence
> that GPS approaches have improved overall safety in non-precision
> approaches.
>
> Any pointers please?

No pointers. Emprically, I'd say they are working great in the US. The issue
is politics, not safety.

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Julian Scarfe wrote:
>
> > 10ish years after overlay GPS approaches were introduced in the US, we
in
> > the UK still have no GPS approaches. There must be a considerable body
of
> > evidence collected on accidents, incidents and anomalies over the period
> > that GPS approaches have been in use. In particular, there may be
evidence
> > that GPS approaches have improved overall safety in non-precision
> > approaches.
> >
> > Any pointers please?
>
> No pointers. Emprically, I'd say they are working great in the US. The
issue
> is politics, not safety.
>
tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without assurances
that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department of
Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
Ultimately this does become a safety issue.

What the US authorities do in their own country and to their own airspace
system is one thing, doing it in someone else's is another.

"S Green" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > No pointers. Emprically, I'd say they are working great in the US. The
> issue
> > is politics, not safety.
> >
> tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without
assurances
> that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department
of
> Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
> Ultimately this does become a safety issue.
>

Are you seriously suggesting that the DOD would on a whim turn off all the
GPS signals and possibly cause thousands of people to die in landing
accidents? Um, yeah -- let's see:

"Mr. President, we had a terrorist threat of condition chartreuse today, so
we decided to kill thousands of people at random all over the world by
turning off the GPS system. When the terrorists actually blew up London, we
were unable to respond because the GPS system was turned off."

"Good job, boys. The political fallout over that should be minimal..."

No, I don't think so.

Next I suppose that you are going to claim that the British don't have any
radar that they could use in the event of a navigation system failure.

Or maybe your view really is just anti-American politics after all.

S Green wrote:

> > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Julian Scarfe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>10ish years after overlay GPS approaches were introduced in the US, we
>
> in
>
>>>the UK still have no GPS approaches. There must be a considerable body
>
> of
>
>>>evidence collected on accidents, incidents and anomalies over the period
>>>that GPS approaches have been in use. In particular, there may be
>
> evidence
>
>>>that GPS approaches have improved overall safety in non-precision
>>>approaches.
>>>
>>>Any pointers please?
>>
>>No pointers. Emprically, I'd say they are working great in the US. The
>
> issue
>
>>is politics, not safety.
>>
>
> tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without assurances
> that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department of
> Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
> Ultimately this does become a safety issue.

I think it is still politics.


> What the US authorities do in their own country and to their own airspace
> system is one thing, doing it in someone else's is another.

Do you really think the US would do something that would jeopardize its
own civilian traffic? Also, there are reasons that most aircraft have
multiple navigation systems. Any system can fail and it is only prudent
to have some form of backup. If any country depends only on GPS for
navigation, then the safety issue is theirs.


Matt

"S Green" > wrote in message
...

> tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without
assurances
> that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department
of
> Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
> Ultimately this does become a safety issue.

But the UK authorities already rely on GPS at least to the same extent. As
well as having to carry ADF, VOR and DME for IFR flight in controlled
airspace, anyone wanting to fly at or above FL100 (note that that's
equivalent to 10,000 ft, perhaps not what US pilots are used to for flight
levels) needs B-RNAV (B for Basic). The only economical way of meeting the
B-RNAV requirement is to carry a TSO-C129a class A GPS receiver. I have in
the back of my mind that, ironically, it has to be class A1 (approach
capable) because B-RNAV imposes some extra requirements beyond the A2 spec,
but I'm not sure. Thus if the GPS infrastructure disappears, the
unavailability of a few overlay approaches or even standalone GPS approaches
is the least of our problems!

I'd like to see:

a) a relaxation in the requirement to carry all of ADF, VOR *and* DME if
there's also a TSO-C129a GPS receiver and the conventional nav equipment
allows sensible backup.

b) the ability to fly overlay NDB approaches without ADF, again provided nav
equipment is carried to enable an approach at an alternate.

Sometimes, and I know its rare, politics falls before a rational argument...

Julian Scarfe

S Green wrote:

> <
> tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without assurances
> that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department of
> Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
> Ultimately this does become a safety issue.
>
> What the US authorities do in their own country and to their own airspace
> system is one thing, doing it in someone else's is another.

That is such a crock of crap. The politics I am referring to is the refusal of
you Brits to take a freebie and run with it.

You don't have to dissasemble your present system, yet take advantage of GPS for
superior non-precision IAPs all over the Empire. If the evil Americans shut
down the system you treat it like a RAIM failure and proceed to your non-GPS
alternate.

Google "eurofix" to get a glimpse of the future.

Bob Gardner

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
news:S3Awc.214$SC4.162@newsfe5-win...
> 10ish years after overlay GPS approaches were introduced in the US, we in
> the UK still have no GPS approaches. There must be a considerable body of
> evidence collected on accidents, incidents and anomalies over the period
> that GPS approaches have been in use. In particular, there may be
evidence
> that GPS approaches have improved overall safety in non-precision
> approaches.
>
> Any pointers please?
>
> Thanks
>
> Julian Scarfe
>
>

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message =
news:G%Jwc.281$%a5.54@newsfe5-win...
>=20
>=20
> ..... As
> well as having to carry ADF, VOR and DME for IFR flight in controlled
> airspace, anyone wanting to fly at or above FL100 (note that that's
> equivalent to 10,000 ft, perhaps not what US pilots are used to for =
flight
> levels) needs B-RNAV (B for Basic). The only economical way of meeting =
the
> B-RNAV requirement is to carry a TSO-C129a class A GPS receiver. I =
have in
> the back of my mind that, ironically, it has to be class A1 (approach
> capable) because B-RNAV imposes some extra requirements beyond the A2 =
spec,
> but I'm not sure.=20
>=20
>=20
> Julian Scarfe
>=20
>=20
Interesting, if that A1 need is indeed the case.
Approach capability seems an odd requirement in equipment mandated only =
for high-altitude flight.
But logic shouldn't be applied recklessly to regulations, should it?
---JRC---

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Google "eurofix" to get a glimpse of the future.

Interesting, though it doesn't appear to have been updated for three years
(including the "live" test data)!

Julian

"John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
...

> Interesting, if that A1 need is indeed the case.
> Approach capability seems an odd requirement in equipment mandated only
for high-altitude flight.
> But logic shouldn't be applied recklessly to regulations, should it?

Reveiwing some historical material, I think I'm mistaken. B-RNAV mandated
health-word checking and pseudorange step detection which caused some grief
against US standards, but I believe that was about the difference between
C129 and C129a.

Julian Scarfe

Julian, so what is the reason no gps approaches in the UK?
What is the CAA waiting for?
Are there not some fields that could benefit from an approach that can
be lined up exactly with the centerline?
Is it only politics?
Stan

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:11:38 +0100, "Julian Scarfe"
> wrote:

>"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
>> tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without
>assurances
>> that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department
>of
>> Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
>> Ultimately this does become a safety issue.
>
>But the UK authorities already rely on GPS at least to the same extent. As
>well as having to carry ADF, VOR and DME for IFR flight in controlled
>airspace, anyone wanting to fly at or above FL100 (note that that's
>equivalent to 10,000 ft, perhaps not what US pilots are used to for flight
>levels) needs B-RNAV (B for Basic). The only economical way of meeting the
>B-RNAV requirement is to carry a TSO-C129a class A GPS receiver. I have in
>the back of my mind that, ironically, it has to be class A1 (approach
>capable) because B-RNAV imposes some extra requirements beyond the A2 spec,
>but I'm not sure. Thus if the GPS infrastructure disappears, the
>unavailability of a few overlay approaches or even standalone GPS approaches
>is the least of our problems!
>
>I'd like to see:
>
>a) a relaxation in the requirement to carry all of ADF, VOR *and* DME if
>there's also a TSO-C129a GPS receiver and the conventional nav equipment
>allows sensible backup.
>
>b) the ability to fly overlay NDB approaches without ADF, again provided nav
>equipment is carried to enable an approach at an alternate.
>
>Sometimes, and I know its rare, politics falls before a rational argument...
>
>Julian Scarfe
>

At the risk of sounding endlessly questioning,

How would turning off GPS suddenly cause the death of thousands. Other
navigational equipment is required (at least in the US). And the GPS
system IS a DOD facility, operated by the US. I dont see any obligation
being promulgated on us to the rest of the world.

The Russians have their own version dont they? Do you think they have
any sense of responsibility to any US users who may happen to be using
their system?

Dave

C J Campbell wrote:
> "S Green" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>No pointers. Emprically, I'd say they are working great in the US. The
>>
>>issue
>>
>>>is politics, not safety.
>>>
>>
>>tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without
>
> assurances
>
>>that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department
>
> of
>
>>Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
>>Ultimately this does become a safety issue.
>>
>
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that the DOD would on a whim turn off all the
> GPS signals and possibly cause thousands of people to die in landing
> accidents? Um, yeah -- let's see:
>
> "Mr. President, we had a terrorist threat of condition chartreuse today, so
> we decided to kill thousands of people at random all over the world by
> turning off the GPS system. When the terrorists actually blew up London, we
> were unable to respond because the GPS system was turned off."
>
> "Good job, boys. The political fallout over that should be minimal..."
>
> No, I don't think so.
>
> Next I suppose that you are going to claim that the British don't have any
> radar that they could use in the event of a navigation system failure.
>
> Or maybe your view really is just anti-American politics after all.
>
>

Julian Scarfe wrote:

> "John R. Copeland" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Interesting, if that A1 need is indeed the case.
> > Approach capability seems an odd requirement in equipment mandated only
> for high-altitude flight.
> > But logic shouldn't be applied recklessly to regulations, should it?
>
> Reveiwing some historical material, I think I'm mistaken. B-RNAV mandated
> health-word checking and pseudorange step detection which caused some grief
> against US standards, but I believe that was about the difference between
> C129 and C129a.
>
> Julian Scarfe

My recollection is that legacy RNAV aircraft can meet the Euro requirements
quite easily using DME/DME. Those clunky birds don't even have GPS.
Basically, Euro wanted crummy VOR aircraft out of the system.

OK, then, go to www.avionicsmagazine.com, June 2004 issue, and see the
future. My point is that within a few years, enhanced loran will be
available when GPS is not.

Bob Gardner

"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
news:atLwc.293$%a5.124@newsfe5-win...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Google "eurofix" to get a glimpse of the future.
>
> Interesting, though it doesn't appear to have been updated for three years
> (including the "live" test data)!
>
> Julian
>
>

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:11:38 +0100, "Julian Scarfe"
> wrote:

>"S Green" > wrote in message
...
>
>> tend to agree. Look who controls the GPS infrastructure. without
>assurances
>> that the integrity of the system was not at the whim of the US Department
>of
>> Defence, I cannot see the UK authorities being prepared to rely on GPS.
>> Ultimately this does become a safety issue.
>
>But the UK authorities already rely on GPS at least to the same extent. As
>well as having to carry ADF, VOR and DME for IFR flight in controlled
>airspace, anyone wanting to fly at or above FL100 (note that that's
>equivalent to 10,000 ft, perhaps not what US pilots are used to for flight
>levels) needs B-RNAV (B for Basic). The only economical way of meeting the
>B-RNAV requirement is to carry a TSO-C129a class A GPS receiver. I have in

Here I have basick RNAV and it doesn't even have a GPS input.
Strictly the old KNS-80, but it is RNAV ... over here.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>the back of my mind that, ironically, it has to be class A1 (approach
>capable) because B-RNAV imposes some extra requirements beyond the A2 spec,
>but I'm not sure. Thus if the GPS infrastructure disappears, the
>unavailability of a few overlay approaches or even standalone GPS approaches
>is the least of our problems!
>
>I'd like to see:
>
>a) a relaxation in the requirement to carry all of ADF, VOR *and* DME if
>there's also a TSO-C129a GPS receiver and the conventional nav equipment
>allows sensible backup.
>
>b) the ability to fly overlay NDB approaches without ADF, again provided nav
>equipment is carried to enable an approach at an alternate.
>
>Sometimes, and I know its rare, politics falls before a rational argument...
>
>Julian Scarfe
>

On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
wrote:

>OK, then, go to www.avionicsmagazine.com, June 2004 issue, and see the
>future. My point is that within a few years, enhanced loran will be
>available when GPS is not.

What is enhanced Loran? I've used the old Loran for years and have
developed a healthy distrust of its accuracy. It is handy and easy to
use, but I always want something to prove it's correct.

Multipathing, atmospherics, signal failure, complete loss of
navigation from the loran, 2 miles changes in position when changing
chains, and one time it had me at the wrong airport 20 miles from the
desired one. When I headed for home 2 hours later it still was
figuring I was in the wrong place. About 5 miles after I started
south it did a reset and low and behold, I was not back on course.
<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Bob Gardner
>
>"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
>news:atLwc.293$%a5.124@newsfe5-win...
>> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Google "eurofix" to get a glimpse of the future.
>>
>> Interesting, though it doesn't appear to have been updated for three years
>> (including the "live" test data)!
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>

"Dave S" > wrote in message
link.net...
> At the risk of sounding endlessly questioning,
>
> How would turning off GPS suddenly cause the death of thousands. Other
> navigational equipment is required (at least in the US). And the GPS
> system IS a DOD facility, operated by the US. I dont see any obligation
> being promulgated on us to the rest of the world.
>
> The Russians have their own version dont they? Do you think they have
> any sense of responsibility to any US users who may happen to be using
> their system?
>

Maybe that is Europe's problem. Somehow they can't understand that we are
not creepy, underhanded Europeans with an ulterior motive for everything.
They think that we must be just like they are.

So, if it is not to kill thousands of people, what is the hidden agenda
behind keeping DOD in charge of GPS? If turning off GPS will not endanger
anyone, what is the real objection that the Europeans have to it?

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> OK, then, go to www.avionicsmagazine.com, June 2004 issue, and see the
> future. My point is that within a few years, enhanced loran will be
> available when GPS is not.
>

Loran has too many disadvantages. Its user base is too small. It is the same
problem that we have with all the rest of the aviation navigation system. It
is expensive and targeted too narrowly. GPS can be used by everyone. It is
simple, reliable, and cheap. Taxpayers and their representatives have little
incentive to continue funding an expensive, unreliable navigation
infrastructure that is used by only a tiny minority when that minority
(aviation) can just as easily use GPS just like everybody else.

The only real problem Europeans have with GPS is that it is not European.
Every other complaint they have about it is demonstrably silly.

> > Interesting, though it doesn't appear to have been updated for three
years
> > (including the "live" test data)!

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> OK, then, go to www.avionicsmagazine.com, June 2004 issue, and see the
> future. My point is that within a few years, enhanced loran will be
> available when GPS is not.

Point taken. It seems to be the pages at Delft where Eurofix was developed
that have become stale, and I was a little hasty.

http://www.nels.org/

NW Europe LORAN System, seems to be the best source of info.

The system is still dependent on GPS (or rather, somebody's GNSS). It's yet
another way of doing DGPS.

Julian

> wrote in message ...

> My recollection is that legacy RNAV aircraft can meet the Euro
requirements
> quite easily using DME/DME.

"Legacy" as in already having an RNAV system as part of the FMS that works
on a different sensor? Yes, but we're talking systems that cost as much as
many GA aircraft are worth.

> Those clunky birds don't even have GPS.
> Basically, Euro wanted crummy VOR aircraft out of the system.

And it seems to have had the desired effect. Navigation in Europe these
days tends to be from five-letter waypoint to five-letter waypoint (or
rather, direct to five-letter waypoint). In NW Europe at least, most routes
are now RNAV routes.

Julian

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...

> Here I have basick RNAV and it doesn't even have a GPS input.
> Strictly the old KNS-80, but it is RNAV ... over here.

We have one too, and it bought us an exemption for a few years. But it
doesn't meet current B-RNAV requirements for two reasons:

1) Its VOR is no longer approved for IFR use in Europe, since it doesn't
meet FM-immunity requirements -- I think they made a filter kit for the
upgrade to FM immune, but its cost was a serious fraction of the cost of a
TSO-C129a GPS!

2) B-RNAV equipment has to have a waypoint database, so that when they sent
you to FOOBA the nav kit knows where you're going, even if you don't.

Julian

> wrote in message
...
> Julian, so what is the reason no gps approaches in the UK?
> What is the CAA waiting for?
> Are there not some fields that could benefit from an approach that can
> be lined up exactly with the centerline?
> Is it only politics?

Good questions. I'd rather not put words into the CAA's mouth. I just want
to ask the questions once armed with the safety case!

Julian

Well, yes. If one checks with them, one will find:

http://www.reelektronika.nl/

with the current status of the project as well as many links.

Generally speeking, I find the concept of a back-up rnav with a

- different technology,
- different frequency band,
- different modulation and a
- ground-bases vs. space-based set-up of the stations *very* appealing.

Also the cost of installation and operation are only a fraction of what the
space-based system would require.

Here is a citation from a private email:

"Galileo is a European initiative to make sure that high-level satellite
technology remains also available in Europe, [SNIP]
However, the systems are indeed very much alike which means that both
systems will , unfortunately, be sensitive to intentional and unintentional
interference."

The only other option for a back-up rnav I can see at the horizon are small,
selfcontained solid state INS.

....just my 5 pence...

Happy Flying, Eckard

"Julian Scarfe" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:atLwc.293$%a5.124@newsfe5-win...
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Google "eurofix" to get a glimpse of the future.
>
> Interesting, though it doesn't appear to have been updated for three years
> (including the "live" test data)!
>
> Julian
>
>

Roger, you and C. J. Campbell are referring to what is now known as legacy
loran. Enhanced loran timing has an accuracy of one nanosecond, compared to
the timers I used when I was in the USCG. New antennas, using the H-field,
have eliminated the effects of precipitation static. New "all-in-view"
receivers work with 30 to 40 stations simultaneously, obviating the need for
the pilot to select chains or be concerned with station geometry. It's a
whole new technology that should not be compared to legacy loran.

Go to http://www.locusinc.com/library/2004ICNS.pdf and you will see the
result of test flights showing the enhanced loran track overlying the GPS
track within a microscrump.

Bob Gardner

"Roger Halstead" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:22:59 -0700, "Bob Gardner" >
> wrote:
>
> >OK, then, go to www.avionicsmagazine.com, June 2004 issue, and see the
> >future. My point is that within a few years, enhanced loran will be
> >available when GPS is not.
>
> What is enhanced Loran? I've used the old Loran for years and have
> developed a healthy distrust of its accuracy. It is handy and easy to
> use, but I always want something to prove it's correct.
>
> Multipathing, atmospherics, signal failure, complete loss of
> navigation from the loran, 2 miles changes in position when changing
> chains, and one time it had me at the wrong airport 20 miles from the
> desired one. When I headed for home 2 hours later it still was
> figuring I was in the wrong place. About 5 miles after I started
> south it did a reset and low and behold, I was not back on course.
> <:-))
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
> >
> >Bob Gardner
> >
> >"Julian Scarfe" > wrote in message
> >news:atLwc.293$%a5.124@newsfe5-win...
> >> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > Google "eurofix" to get a glimpse of the future.
> >>
> >> Interesting, though it doesn't appear to have been updated for three
years
> >> (including the "live" test data)!
> >>
> >> Julian
> >>
> >>
> >
>

Who says they cant "USE" it? All DOD says is that they reserve the right
to degrade its accuracy or discontinue it. They arent saying "For US Use
Only".

Dave

C J Campbell wrote:
> "Dave S" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>At the risk of sounding endlessly questioning,
>>
>>How would turning off GPS suddenly cause the death of thousands. Other
>>navigational equipment is required (at least in the US). And the GPS
>>system IS a DOD facility, operated by the US. I dont see any obligation
>>being promulgated on us to the rest of the world.
>>
>>The Russians have their own version dont they? Do you think they have
>>any sense of responsibility to any US users who may happen to be using
>>their system?
>>
>
>
> Maybe that is Europe's problem. Somehow they can't understand that we are
> not creepy, underhanded Europeans with an ulterior motive for everything.
> They think that we must be just like they are.
>
> So, if it is not to kill thousands of people, what is the hidden agenda
> behind keeping DOD in charge of GPS? If turning off GPS will not endanger
> anyone, what is the real objection that the Europeans have to it?
>
>

Bob Gardner wrote:

> OK, then, go to www.avionicsmagazine.com, June 2004 issue, and see the
> future. My point is that within a few years, enhanced loran will be
> available when GPS is not.

That must be some joke fostered by the LORAN equipment manufacturers.

The high-end stuff that goes oceanic all have triple IRS units, which with
position mix will do far better than any LF "enhanced ADF."

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
...
> Roger, you and C. J. Campbell are referring to what is now known as legacy
> loran.

Still does not address the issue of cost, though. Why develop an expensive
system the cost of which will be spread across a tiny user base when GPS
works just fine?

In the first place, the motivator is finding a backup for GPS that is
sufficiently removed in frequency and technology that both cannot be jammed;
users world-wide are demanding this. Second, your "small market" argument
fails when you consider the number of industries that are dependent on
timing...the telecommunications industry is one major market. Just read the
references I have given (and I have many more) to get the big picture. Or
Google "loran + gps.

Don't limit your thinking to aviation and maritime uses.

Bob Gardner

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Gardner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Roger, you and C. J. Campbell are referring to what is now known as
legacy
> > loran.
>
> Still does not address the issue of cost, though. Why develop an expensive
> system the cost of which will be spread across a tiny user base when GPS
> works just fine?
>
>

I usually appreciate your input to these newsgroups because you obviously
have an insider's perspective. In this case, however, you have not done your
homework. Enhanced GPS meets the RNP 0.3 standard, which will make it good
for nonprecision approaches when the funding is solid and the whole system
is upgraded.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > OK, then, go to www.avionicsmagazine.com, June 2004 issue, and see the
> > future. My point is that within a few years, enhanced loran will be
> > available when GPS is not.
>
> That must be some joke fostered by the LORAN equipment manufacturers.
>
> The high-end stuff that goes oceanic all have triple IRS units, which with
> position mix will do far better than any LF "enhanced ADF."
>

If you have contacts at FAA HQ, check out Mitchell Narins, AND-702, whose
2002 paper "FAA Evaluation of Loran-C I-CNS Conference Briefing" laid a
foundation for many of the arguments in favor of continued funding. He is
not, to my knowledge, in the pocket of the loran manufacturers.

Bob Gardner

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Bob Gardner wrote:
>
> > OK, then, go to www.avionicsmagazine.com, June 2004 issue, and see the
> > future. My point is that within a few years, enhanced loran will be
> > available when GPS is not.
>
> That must be some joke fostered by the LORAN equipment manufacturers.
>
> The high-end stuff that goes oceanic all have triple IRS units, which with
> position mix will do far better than any LF "enhanced ADF."
>

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in message >...
> If you have contacts at FAA HQ, check out Mitchell Narins, AND-702, whose
> 2002 paper "FAA Evaluation of Loran-C I-CNS Conference Briefing" laid a
> foundation for many of the arguments in favor of continued funding. He is
> not, to my knowledge, in the pocket of the loran manufacturers.

I've seen him give several talks at ION and attended the ICNS
conference. Mitch is good people with a sound technical understanding
and has no problem dancing ;)

> Bob Gardner

Regards,
Jon

Bob Gardner wrote:

> I usually appreciate your input to these newsgroups because you obviously
> have an insider's perspective. In this case, however, you have not done your
> homework. Enhanced GPS meets the RNP 0.3 standard, which will make it good
> for nonprecision approaches when the funding is solid and the whole system
> is upgraded.
>

What's enhanced GPS in this context? GPS today meets RNP 0.3.

If you meant enhanced LORAN, no one I have dealt with is even talking about such
a requirement.

And, the airlines aren't about to spend any money on anything like that. Like I
said, "triple mixed" IRS does quite nicely in a pinch and they are already part
of the equation.

The GPS goes out and you use triple mix IRS postion until you get into a DME
environment, then DME/DME does the update until you get onto the ILS.

> If you meant enhanced LORAN, no one I have dealt with is even talking about
> such a requirement.
>
> And, the airlines aren't about to spend any money on anything like that.
> Like I said, "triple mixed" IRS does quite nicely in a pinch and they
> are already part of the equation.

In June 2002 I attended a presentation on LORAN given by Mitch Narins. Here
are the key points I noted then:

- The goal would be to provide a backup to GPS, capable of RNP 0.3
non-precision approach.

- LORAN availability, accuracy, integrity, and continuity were all
insufficient, and were all considered medium technical risks. Integrity was
considered the biggest challenge.

- It was estimated that 5 to 7 years of development would be needed before
LORAN could serve as a backup to GPS.

- No market was seen for standalone LORAN receivers - the enhanced LORAN would
be used only as an integrated component in multimode receivers.

I don't know what progress, if any, has been made in the past two years.

Barry

Barry wrote:

> In June 2002 I attended a presentation on LORAN given by Mitch Narins. Here
> are the key points I noted then:
>
> - The goal would be to provide a backup to GPS, capable of RNP 0.3
> non-precision approach.

I have a goal to win the Lottery Jackpot, too. ;-)

I had an Azure portable Loran that I got in 1988, as I recall. Then, they filled
in the mid-continent gap a couple of years later. Nonetheless, here in Southern
California, where the goemetry goes tango-alpha, I often saw 1/2 nautical mile
errors.

Keep in mind that RNP is a total system commitment, from pilot, to avionics, to
accuracy and integrety of the sensor. The powers-that-be decreed that GPS could
deliver RNP 0.3 with RAIM and approach display scaling of 0.3 n.m. Thus, we got
GPS RNP 0.3 by fiat, rather than by the ICAO definition of RNP. The snake oil
salesmen have been working hard to get to .20 and even .11, but so far
(fortunately) the feds won't buy into it, except for local differential. Boeing
has a great demo system at Moses Lake that works at one airport with one very
advanced 737-900.

Fours years have passed and there is no RNP .20 or .11 except with Boeing's demo
at one airport with one very expensive airplane.

And, this is working with the best stuff, not with "computed ADF." ;-)

> Four years have passed and there is no RNP .20 or .11 except with Boeing's
> demo at one airport with one very expensive airplane.

Doesn't Alaska Airlines have a special procedure into Juneau with RNP less
than 0.3?

Barry wrote:

> > Four years have passed and there is no RNP .20 or .11 except with Boeing's
> > demo at one airport with one very expensive airplane.
>
> Doesn't Alaska Airlines have a special procedure into Juneau with RNP less
> than 0.3?

Yes, but that is bogus RNP, in that they use terrain mapping radar and some
other enhancements to keep off the canyon walls.

In article >, wrote:

> > Doesn't Alaska Airlines have a special procedure into Juneau with RNP
> > less
> > than 0.3?
>
> Yes, but that is bogus RNP, in that they use terrain mapping radar and
> some
> other enhancements to keep off the canyon walls.

anything that helps the nav system maintain containment and integrity
is perfectly ok.

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
>
> > > Doesn't Alaska Airlines have a special procedure into Juneau with RNP
> > > less
> > > than 0.3?
> >
> > Yes, but that is bogus RNP, in that they use terrain mapping radar and
> > some
> > other enhancements to keep off the canyon walls.
>
> anything that helps the nav system maintain containment and integrity
> is perfectly ok.
>
> --
> Bob Noel

By that definition, eyeballs work well when you can see.

No doubt that belts and suspenders work well, but using the terrain mapping
feature of airborne weather radar doesn't fit the ICAO definition of RNP. It
works at Juneau because of the topography. It wouldn't work at most places.